I'm confused, as this doesn't feel quite right 🤔. Experienced in making a fool of myself, but could the rule of 3 example be giving 95% confidence of the *opposite* (yes) of what has been uniformly observed in the sample size n (no), being less than 3/n?
Well spotted. The general description is correct (If we sample N people or things at random and none of them have a particular characteristic, then we can be 95% confident that less than 3/N of the overall population have the characteristic), but example had a typo. Now fixed.
Adam, this to keep! I haven;t followed you yet when you posted this one. Thank you!
I'm confused, as this doesn't feel quite right 🤔. Experienced in making a fool of myself, but could the rule of 3 example be giving 95% confidence of the *opposite* (yes) of what has been uniformly observed in the sample size n (no), being less than 3/n?
Well spotted. The general description is correct (If we sample N people or things at random and none of them have a particular characteristic, then we can be 95% confident that less than 3/N of the overall population have the characteristic), but example had a typo. Now fixed.